\ 

LETTER 


HON.  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS, 


IK  EXPLANATION  OF  THE 


NEBRASKA  AND  KANSAS 


TERRITORIAL  BILL. 


WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED  BY  ROBERT  ARMSTRONG 

1854. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign 


https://archive.org/details/letterofhonstephOOdoug 


l/  )  *  ^  v 

LETTER. 


Washington,  February  16,  1854. 

Sir:  I  am  under  obligation  to  you  for  your  paper  which  has  come 
to  hand  regularly  from  the  commencement  of  the  session.  I  saw  with 
pleasure  that  you  took  a  bold  stand  in  favor  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  and 
spoke  in  favorable  terms  of  my  speech  in  its  support.  In  this  you  did 
no  more  than  what  might  have  been  reasonably  expected  from  a  sound 
democratic  paper.  The  bill  rests  upon,  and  proposes  to  carry  into 
effect,  the  great  fundamental  principle  of  self-government  upon  which 
our  republican  institutions  are  predicated.  It  does  not  propose  to  legis¬ 
late  slavery  into  the  Territories,  nor  out  of  the  Territories.  It  does  not 
propose  to  establish  institutions  for  the  people,  nor  to  deprive  them  of 
the  rfoht  of  determining  for  themselves  what  kind  of  domestic  institu- 
tions  they  may  have.  It  presupposes  that  the  people  of  the  Territories 
are  as  intelligent,  as  wise,  as  patriotic,  as  conscientious  as  their  breth¬ 
ren  and  kindred  whom  they  left  behind  them  in  the  States,  and  as  they 
were  before  they  emigrated  to  the  Territories.  By  creating  a  territo¬ 
rial  government  we  acknowledge  that  the  people  of  the  Territory 
ought  to  be  erected  into  a  distinct  political  organization.  By  giving 
them  a  territorial  legislation,  we  acknowledge  their  capacity  to  legis¬ 
late  for  themselves.  Now,  let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  every  abolitionist 
and  freesoiler,  who  opposes  the  Nebraska  bill,  avows  his  willingness  to 
support  it,  provided  that  slavery  shall  be  forever  prohibited  therein. 
The  objection,  therefore,  does  not  consist  in  a  denial  of  the  necessity  for 
a  territorial  government,  nor  of  the  capacity  of  the  people  to  govern 
themselves,  so  far  as  white  men  are  concerned.  They  are  willing  to 
allow  the  people  to  legislate  for  themselves  in  relation  to  husband  and 
wife,  parent  and  child,  master  and  servant,  and  guardian  and  ward,  so 
far  as  white  persons  a!re  to  be  affected  ;  but  seem  to  think  that  it  re¬ 
quires  a  higher  degree  of  civilization  and  refinement  to  legislate  for  the 
negro  race,  than  can  reasonably  be  expected  the  people  of  a  Territory 
to  possess.  Is  this  position  well  founded?  Does  it  require  any  greater 
capacity  or  keener  sense  of  moral  rectitude  to  legislate  for  the  black 
man  than  for  the  white  man  ?  Not  being  able  to  appreciate  the  force 
of  this  theory  on  the  part  of  the  abolitionists,  I  propose,  by  the  express 
terms  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  to  leave  the  people  of  the  Territories  “  per¬ 
fectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own 
way,  subject  only  to  the  constitution  of  the  Unite^  States/’ 

While  I  have  understood  you  to  support  these  principles,  and  to  de¬ 
fend  the  Nebraska  bill  upon  these  grounds  in  former  numbers  of  your 
paper,  I  have  observed  with  regret  and  amazement  a  leading  article  in 
your  paper  of  the  14th  instant,  this  moment  received,  in  which  the 
whole  object,  meaning,  principles,  provisions,  and  legal  effect  of  the 
bill  are  so  grossly  and  wickedly  perverted  and  misrepresented,  as  to 
leave  no  doubt  that  the  article  was  prepared  by  a  deadly  enem}r,  under 


32(*.  ?'/3 
P  *74  jib 


» 


4 


the  hypocritical  guise  of  friendship,  for  the  purpose  of  furnishing  “  aid 
and  comfort”  to  the  northern  whigs  and  abolitionists  in  their  warfare 
upon  this  great  measure  of  pacification  and  the  Democratic  party  in 
New  Hampshire  and  throughout  the  Union,  and  especially  upon  that 
great  fundamental  principle  which  declares  that  every  people  capable 
of  self-government  ought  to  be  permitted  to  regulate  their  domestic  con¬ 
cerns  m  their  own  way.  It  is  but  justice  to  you  to  remark,  that  the 
article  in  question,  although  appearing  under  the  editorial  head,  has  the 
sign  at  the  end  of  it  which  would  indicate  that  it  w^as  not  written  by 
the  editor,  but  was  furnished  as  a  communication.  Trusting  that  such 
may  be  the  case,  and  that  you  will  promptly  vindicate  yourself  by  ex¬ 
posing  the  fraud  and  its  author,  I  will  quote  a  single  paragraph  as  a 
specimen  of  the  whole  article,  which  contains  incontestable  proof  that 
the  writer  is  an  enemy  to  the  bill,  and  to  the  great  principle  involved  in 
it,  and  to  its  friends,  and  that  he  has  assumed  the  garb  of  friendship  in 
order  to  destroy,  b}’  fatal  admissions,  perversions,  and  misrepresenta¬ 
tions,  what  he  could  not  accomplish  by  direct  opposition  over  his  own 
signature: 

“  The  Nebraska  bill,  if  it  shall  pass  both  houses  of  Congress  and 
become  a  law,  repeals  the  Missouri  Compromise.  And  what  will  be 
the  effect  of  such  repeal?  Unquestionably  to  revive  and  re-establish  sla¬ 
very  over  that  whole  region.  When  Louisiana  was  ceded  to  the  United 
States  the  law  of  slavery  existed  over  that  whole  vast  territory.  It 
required  no  lawr  to  establish  the  institution — it  then  existed  in  fact  and 
by  law.  And  out  of  that  territory  already  three  slave  States  have 
been  carved,  and  admitted  into  the  Union,  viz.,  Louisiana,  Arkansas, 
and  Missouri.  When  they  came  into  the  possession  of  the  Union  as 
Territories,  slavery  had  been  planted  and  was  flourishing  upon  their 
soil ;  and  the  whole  territorv  of  Louisiana  was  under  the  dominion  of 
the  law  which  established  and  legalized  the  institution.  Therefore, 
when  those  States  came  into  the  Union,  the  people  did  not  have  to 
establish  and  ordain  slavery.  The  Missouri  Compromise  repealed  and 
excluded,  the  institution  above  the  line  of  36°  30'.  The  repeal  of  that 
Compromise  revives  and  re-establishes  slavery  in  all  the  remaining  territory 
of  the  Louisiana  purchase.  Therefore,  the  law  which  permits  slavery 
will  be  revived,  and  slavery  will  exist  in  Nebraska  and  Kansas  the 
very  moment  the  Nebraska  bill  receives  the  sanction  of  the  President. 
This  is  the  only  deduction  which  can  be  logically  drawn  from  the 
premises. 

“  The  proposition,  therefore,  which  northern  men  *re  to  look  fully 
in  the  face,  and  to  meet  without  the  possibility  of  evasion,  is  this  : 
Shall  slavery  be  revived  and  re-established  in  Nebraska  and  Kansas?  And, 
as  a  necessary  consequence,  shall  the  slave  States  regain  that  politi¬ 
cal  preponderance  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  which  they  have 
lost  by  the  more  rapid  multiplication,  of  late,  of  free  States  ?  These 
are  the  propositions  which  northern  men  must  meet,  and  which  they 
cannot  now  dodge  or  evade.” 

Now,  Mr.  Editor,  you  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  italics  are  yours 
and  not  mine.  When  a  newspaper  writer  italicises  particular  passa¬ 
ges  in  an  article,  he  has  an  object  in  doing  so.  We  all  know  that  the 


5 


object  is  to  invite  the  attention  of  the  reader  especially  to  passages 
thus  designated.  What  are  the  passages  thus  italicised  ?  The  first 
is,  that  the  effect  of  the  Nebraska  bill  will  be  “unquestionably  to 

REVIVE  AND  RE-ESTABLISH  SLAVERY  OVER  THAT  WHOLE  REGION!” 

The  second  is,  that  “  The  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise 

REVIVES  AND  RE-ESTABLISHES  SLAVERY  IN  ALL  THE  REMAINING  TER¬ 
RITORY  of  the  Louisiana  purchase.” 

The  third  is,  that  the  whole  question  involved  in  the  passage  of 
the  Nebraska  bill  is  :  “  Shall  slavery  be  revived  and  re-estab- 

y 

lished  in  Nebraska  and  Kansas?” 

Now,  Mr.  Editor,  did  you  not  know,  when  you  read  the  “  proof”  of 
this  article,  that  each  of  these  passages,  thus  italicised,  contains  a 
wicked  and  unpardonable  slander  against  every  friend  and  supporter 
of  the  bill,  whether  he  be  a  northern  or  a  southern  man  ?  Do  you  not 
know  that  the  southern  men  deny  the  constitutional  power  of  Congress 
to  “establish  slavery  in  the  Territories?”  Yet  in  the  teeth  of  this 
undeniable  fact,  which  is  well  known  to  every  man,  woman,  and  child 
who  has  ever  read  a  newspaper, "your  paper  represents  these  gentle¬ 
men  as  proposing  to  violate  not  only  the  constitution,  but  their  own 
oaths,  by  voting  to  “ establish ”  slavery  in  Nebraska  and  Kansas? 
After  attempting  to  fix  this  brand  of  infamy  on  the  brow  of  more  than 
two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the  United  States  Senate,  the  writer  of 
the  article  in  question  proceeds  to  show  the  kindness  of  his  heart  and 
the  purity  of  his  motives,  by  assuring  your  readers  that  he  is  no  better 
than  those  w’hom  he  assails,  and  therefore  he  approves  the  act  and  ad¬ 
vises  its  consummation. 

Three  times  in  the  short  paragraph  I  have  quoted  has  the  writer  of 
that  article  repeated  the  statement  that  it  was  not  only  the  legal  effect, 
but  the  object  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  to  “  revive  and  establish”  slavery 
in  those  Territories. 

Now,  sir,  if  you  be  a  true  friend  of  the  bill,  as  your  paper  professes, 
you  will  correct  these  misrepresentations,  and  vindicate  the  measure, 
and  the  motives  and  conduct  of  its  supporters,  by  publishing  the  bill 
itself,  and  especially  that  portion  which  relates  to  the  act  of  1820,  and 
which  your  paper  represents  as  being  designed  to  establish  slavcr}r  in 
the  Territories.  F.or  fear  that  you  may  not  have  a  copy  of  the  bill,  I 
will  transcribe  so  much  as  bears  upon  this  point,  with  the  request  that 
during  the  pendency  of  this  discussion  you  will  keep  it  standing  in  your 
paper  under  the  editorial  head,  in  as  conspicuous  a  place  and  italicised 
in  the  same  manner  in  which  the  misrepresentation  was  published.  T 
quote  from  the  14th  section  of  the  bill:  % 

“  That  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  which  are  not 
locally  inapplicable,  shall  have  the  same  lorce  and  effect  within  the 
said  Territory  of  Nebraska  as  elsewhere  within  the  United  States,  ex¬ 
cept  the  eighth  section  of  the  act  preparatory  to  the  admission  of  Mis¬ 
souri  into  the  Union,  approved  March  G,  1820,  which  being  inconsistent 
with  the  principle  of  non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in 
the  States  and  Territories  as  recognised  by  the  legislation  of  1850,  (com¬ 
monly  called  the  Compromise  measure)  is  hereby  declared  inopera¬ 
tive  and  void,  it  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act 
not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State ,  nor  to  exclude  it 


6 


therefrom,  hut  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and 

REGULATE  THEIR  DOMESTIC  INSTITUTIONS  IN  THEIR  OWN  WAY,  SUB¬ 
JECT  only  to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States .”  Now,  sir,  inas¬ 
much  as  you  are  the  editor  of  a  democratic  paper,  and  claim  to  be 
the  friend  of  the  bill,  you  will  excuse  me  for  repeating  the  suggestion 
that  you  keep  this  clause  standing  under  the  editorial  head  as  a  notice 
to  your  readers,  that  whoever  shall  hereafter  say  that  the  object  of  the 
bill  is  to  “revive  or  establish  slavery”  in  the  Territories  may  be  branded 
as  he  deserves,  as  a  falsifier  of  the  record,  and  a  calumniator  of  those 
whom  he  professes  to  cherish  as  friends. 

The  bill  provides  in  words  as  specific  and  unequivocal  as  our  lan¬ 
guage  affords,  that  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  act  is  not  to  leg¬ 
islate  slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State.  The  bill,  therefore,  does  not 
introduce  slavery  ;  does  not  revive  it ;  does  not  establish  it ;  does  not 
contain  any  clause  designed  to  produce  that  result,  or  which  by  any 
possible  construction  can  have  that  legal  effect. 

“Non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  States  and  Ter¬ 
ritories”  is  expressly  declared  to  be*the  principle  upon  which  the  bill 
is  constructed.  The  great  fundamental  principle  of  self-government, 
which  authorizes  the  people  to  regulate  their  own  domestic  concerns, 
as  recognised  in  the  Compromise  measure  of  1850,  and  affirmed  by  the 
Democratic  national  convention,  and  reaffirmed  by  the  Whig  conven¬ 
tion  at  Baltimore,  is  declared  in  this  bill  to  be  the  rule  of  action  in  the 
formation  of  territorial  governments.  The  two  great  political  parties  of 
the  country  are  solemnly  pledged  to  a  strict  adherence  to  this  principle 
as  a  final  settlement  of  the  slavery  agitation.  How  can  that  settlement 
be  final,  unless  the  principle  be  preserved  and  carried  out  in  all  new 
territorial  organizations  ? 

But  the  professed  friend  of  the  measure  in  the  article  referred  to 
follows  the  lead  of  his  abolition  confederates  in  this  city,  and  declares 
that  this  bill  opens  that  whole  country  to  slavery  !  Why  do  they  not 
state  the  matter  truly,  and  say  that  it  opens  the  country  to  freedom  by 
leaving  the  people  perfectly  free  to  do  as  they  please  ?  Is  it  true,  as 
these  professed  advocates  of  freedom  would  wish  to  make  the  world 
believe,  that  the  people  of  northern  latitudes  are  so  adverse  to  free 
institutions,  and  so  much  in  love  with  slavery,  that  it  is  necessary  to 
have  Congress  appointed  their  guardian  in  order  to  preserve  that  free¬ 
dom  of  which  they  boast  so  much?  Were  not  the  people  of  New 
Hampshire  left  free  to  decide  this  question  for  themselves  ?  Did  not 
all  the  New  England  States  become  free  States  under  the  operation  of 
the  principle  upon  which  the  Nebraska  bill  is  predicated  ?  If  this  be 
■so — and  every  child  knows  that  it  is  true — by  what  authority  are  we 
told  that  a  country  lying  between  the  same  parallels  of  latitude  which 
embrace  all  of  the  New  England  States,  is  to  be  doomed  to  slavery  if 
we  intrust  them  with  the  same  rights,  privileges,  and  immunities  which 
the  constitution  guarantees  to  the  people  of  New  England?  Are  the 
sons  of  New  England,  any  less  capable  of  judging  for  themselves  when 
they  emigrate  to  Minnesota,  Nebraska,  or  Kansas,  than  they  were 
before  they  ever  passed  beyond  that  circle  which  circumscribed  their 
vision  with  their  native  valleys?  Is  it  wise  to  violate  the  great  princi¬ 
ple  of  self-government,  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  all  free  institu- 


7 


tions,  by  constituting  ourselves  the  officious  guardians  of  a  people  we 
do  not  know,  and  of  a  country  we  never  saw  ?  May  we  not  safely 
leave  them  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  the  same 
manner,  and  by  virtue  of  the  same  principle  which  enabled  New  York, 
New  Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania  to  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits- 
and  establish  free  institutions  for  themselves  ? 

But,  sir,  I  fear  I  have  already  made  this  letter  too  long.  If  so,  my 
apology  therefor  is  to  be  found  in  the  great  importance  of  the  subject, 
and  my  earnest  desire  that  no  honest  mind  be  misled  with  regard  to 
the  provisions  of  the  bill  or  the  principles  involved  in  it.  Every  intel¬ 
ligent  man  knows  that  it  is  a  matter  of  no  practical  importance  so  far 
as  the  question  of  slavery  is  concerned.  The  cry  of  the  extension  of 
slavery  has  been  raised  for  mere  party  purposes  by  the  abolition  con¬ 
federates  and  disappointed  office-seekers.  All  candid  men  who  under¬ 
stand  the  subject  admit  that  the  laws  of  climate,  and  production,  and 
of  physical  geography,  (to  use  the  language  of  one  of  New  England’s 
greatest  statesmen,)  have  excluded  slavery  from  that  country.  This 
was  admitted  by  Mr.  Everett  in  his  speech  against  the  bill,  and  because 
slavery  could  not  go  there,  he  appealed  to  southern  Senators  not  to 
insist  upon  applying  the  provisions  of  the  Utah  bill  to  Nebraska,  when 
they  would  derive  no  advantages  from  it.  The  same  admission  and 
appeal  were  made  by  Mr.  Smith,  of  Connecticut,  in  his  speech  against 
the  bill.  To-day  Mr.  Badger,  of  North  Carolina,  replied  to  these  ap¬ 
peals  by  the  distinct  declaration  that  he  and  his  southern  friends  did 
not  expect  that  slavery  would  go  there;  that  the  climate  and  produc¬ 
tions  were  not  adapted  to  slave  labor;  blit  they  insisted  upon  it  as  a 
matter  of  principle,  and  of  principle  alone.  In  short,  all  candid  and 
intelligent  men  make  the  same  admission,  and  present  the  naked  ques¬ 
tion  as  a  matter  of  principle,  whether  the  people  shall  be  allowed  to 
regulate  their  domestic  concerns  in  their  own  way  or  not.  In  conclu¬ 
sion,  I  may  be  permitted  to  add,  that  the  Democratic  party,  as  well  as 
the  country,  have  a  deep  interest  in  this  matter.  Is  our  party  to  be 
again  divided  and  rent  asunder  upon  this  vexed  question  of  slavery? 

Everything  in  the  past  history  of  the  democracy  of  New  Hampshire 
gives  confidence  and  assurance  to  their  patriotic  brethren  throughout 
the  Union  in  a  crisis  like  the  present.  I  believe  I  know  enough  of  the 
intelligence,  consistency,  and  firmness  of  her  people,  to  warrant  the  be¬ 
lief  that  while  her  favorite  and  honored  son  stands,  as  he  has  stood  and 
now  stands,  firmly  at  the  helm  of  the  ship  of  state,  calmly  facing  the 
threatening  danger,  regardless  of  all  personal  consequences,  her  noble 
people  at  home  will  sustain  themselves  and  him  against  the  attacks  of 
open  foes  and  the  insidious  assaults  of  pretended  friends. 

You  will  do  me  the  justice  to  publish  this  in  your  next  number. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

S.  A.  DOUGLAS  / 

To  the  Editor  of  the  State  Capitol  Reporter, 

Concord,  N.  H. 


"\ 


S  •  *  ■ 


<  y 


bii  ^ 

<W  ■ -::.v  ■ 


•  y  *f,  ■  - . . 


a-t 


,,u 


'3 


-rur  r/s.  • 


i  11- '  •<.  (  ■:  ■  &4 .  '•  ■  -  - 


av*<  js_h 

i 


■ 

or  u  , 


;■  .':  ’  ;  - 


' 


•*?  .  t  Jf  W 


8ft  ' 


H  * 


* 


.  *  RA.r.xio  t  a.  a 


: 


